About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN 52
LANGUAGE
English 52
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 52 (some duplicates have been removed)
. i plan to vote for this bill, h.r. 6156, even though i remain strongly opposed to granting russia permanent normal trade relations or pntr, at this time. i would like to explain the reasons why. those who argued for granting russia pntr, which has until now been prevented by what is known as the jackson-vanik amendment, focus on the supposedly bilateral trade benefits. the issue that concerns me and many members is not trade but human rights. advocates of repeal say that the jackson-vanik amendment is outdated and is purely symbolic and therefore should be disregarded. but in the ira of human rights, madam speaker, symbols can have a very great importance. over the years jackson-vanik has become a sign of the continuing u.s. commitment to human rights in russia and elsewhere. repealing the amendment could very well be interpreted as an indication that our commitment is now weakening. this would be a terrible signal to send at a time when putin is in the process of imposing ever tighter restrictions on all opposition to his regime, especially democratic activists and any others who
permanent normal trade relations to russia. this past august russia joined the world trade organization, giving its members full access to russia's rapidly growing market. reduce tariffs, and ensure transparency when implementing trade measures. however, while foreign competitors are currently benefiting, the u.s. will not receive any of these benefits until congress authorizes the president to grant russia permanent normal trade relations. simply put, american companies, workers, and farmers are being put at a competitive disadvantage. last year my home state of michigan exported $225 million worth of goods to russia. despite many of its best products facing tough competition from foreign competitors. with this agreement in place, farmers and producers in my district will be assured of more predictable market access for the crops and arkansas urel goods, while manufacturers will enjoy reduced tariff rates for michigan-made vehicles and equipment. as the world trade organization member, russia has agreed to comply with the rule of law. though these reforms won't happen overnight, russia
in support today of this rule and h.r. 6156, to grant permanent normal trade relations to russia. . this important legislation is a small step towards a big reward. without it the united states exporters and service providers will continue to lose business to our foreign competitors that have already have trade relations -- relationships with russia. and once we lose those markets, our competitors will only become stronger and better positioned to surpass the u.s. in a critical marketplace of the 21st century global economy. according to the national association of manufacturers, russia imported over $500 billion in goods last year, and of that total only 5% came from u.s. exports. this bill will lift outdated policies and restrict american access to russian markets. as a result studies show u.s. producers can expect to achieve double-digit increases over the next decade in exports of heavy machinery, agricultural machinery, chemicals, and services. this is particularly critical for my home state of illinois where we have fallen behind japan and korea in these export categories.
meaningful contributions now? the contribution does not have to be militarily? russia, i would suggest, should be called upon to step up and belly up to the u.n. security council. they should exert influence. day, i suggest, are the most influential at this time, and they have the ability, number one, to stop supporting this regime that is slaughtering its citizens, to stop, by its acquiescence, standing on the sidelines and letting it happen while the rest of the world realize its hands. >> how do you accomplish that? >> i think they can assert influence in syria. they are one of the few countries that really can at this point. iran, forget it. >> how? what they can support the security camera resolutions, which thus far we have been unable to achieve -- security council resolutions, which we have been unable to achieve. >> what i think we are talking about here is, where do we intervene? where do we not? what is the rationale for doing so or to not do so? i think it's got to be based on one fundamental principle -- our interests, our values, and our values are our interests. i say ab
. not to cross it, because that might bring china into the war. not to do anything to aggravate russia. russia was greedy for any colonies, anything it could grab. and i am not going to give you the atom bomb. you are not going to be able to use it. three things he was told. macarthur said, do not worry, the chinese are not coming in. he got our army up to the 38th parallel. a decision was made. the white house knew -- they decided to cross the parallel to get into north korea and destroy the north korean army. this was an agreed upon decision. we did indeed push back the north koreans. but it triggered the chinese, who came rushing in, hundreds of thousands, truman said, i was promised they would not come in. intelligence told macarthur this would not happen. here we are, fighting hundreds of thousands of chinese. they pushed us all the way back. >> back to seoul? >> beyond. they took seoul back. macarthur started to give press conferences. he asked for the use of the bomb. truman said now. truman did not think -- instead of calling macarthur back, he decided to fly to wake island. he sat wit
] and in russia. 7% of the world's energy is here. -- 70% of the world's energy is here. briefly on human-rights, i do believe actually the great difference between democracy and dictatorship is simply this -- a soft assets, but an important one. and it does not have human- rights that i necessarily proud of, but india does have accountability. china can only become a modern nation if it permits democracy and if it permits secularism, that is equality and presence of trade. until then, it can be successful, but not monitored. >> i want to say three things quickly. i want to follow up on the admirals' comments. it is remarkable to many in the u.s. military that the u.s. is not ratified the convention. we had it pretty sincere effort to bring afford to the senate. we worked a couple of the votes short. i think senator mikulski for her support. i hope we will be allowed to take that up again and get that done as a country. it is challenging to make the case we're making, which is that these potential conflicts over territory should be resolved on the basis of principles when the final conven
. the syrian conflict. russia. this is 45 minutes. i thought i would start here. there has been a lot of conversation in this room about the transition and this country. this is happening in china. tell us a little bit about what you think this transition will bring. well of bring substantial change to china? stability or instability? >> it will bring both. let me explain. and we tend to look at transitions in the united states. people come in. they have to lie to keep orders. they have insurance. they were made to execute. this is not how transitions are working. the power is much less than that from the president of the united states. he has to govern with the consensus of the standing committee. we can judge what the problem is. he is the chairman of the board. he is the most powerful person. he had to form coalitions within the system. the manner of execution brought the country is not necessarily through the first task. each generation of leaders have reflected a certain experience that the revolutionary. they recognize that it had to be, it needed to be reformed. they have the a
are up 25%, up 40%, russia up 80%. last week we took steps towards a new defense partnership with united arab emirate that could be worth more than 6 billion pounds to british industry. i want us to go further still. when i look around the world, i see countries like germany using overseas business that works to drive new business. in brazil, for example, 1700 members of the german chamber. 1700 members of the u.s. chamber's. how many does the u.k. have? just 240. we need to do all whole lot better than that. i have asked steven green, our trade minister to work at home and overseas to increase the quantity and quality of services offered, could relate to the smaller companies seeking to establish themselves abroad for the first time. he will begin within 8 million pound pilot and 20 keep markets and go on to lead a transformation that will change the face of british trade overseas across the globe. there are valuable markets out there that just have not received the attention from government that they deserve. places like to wait, vietnam, algeria, indonesia, rocco. we need to do more t
efforts to persuade russia d china to work with us at the u.n. security council. i will take every opportunity to urge my russian and chinese colleagues to support the political and diplomatic solution to the conflict in syria. without such a solution everything that they and we most fear is coming closer, including ever-greater loss of life, instability in neighboring countries and an opportunity for extremists to pursue their own ends. the basis for such a political settlement is clear: a credible alternative to the assad regime is emerging that has the growing support of the arab league, the european union, the united states and an in's cooing number -- increasing number of countries, and we have an agreed basis for transition which all permanent members of the u.n. security council signed up to in june. but in the absence of that political and diplomat you can solution, we will not rule out any option, and in accordance with international law where it might save innocent lives in syria and prevent the destabilization of a region that remains critical to the security ofhe united
, the house had one bill on the agenda, the bill that would normalize u.s. trade relations with russia and that passed by a vote of 365-43. the senate has yet to take up their version of the measure. a capitol hill reporter fills in the details. >> sports of this bill normalizing trade relations with russia are saying it's long overdue and good for the nation's economy. why is that? >> well, it >> it will hopefully double exports to russia from the united states. it will go across a broad group of products. manufacturers are backing it strongly. it could be airplanes and parts associated with that. locomotives, chemicals, food, clothing. it seems russia likes u.s. products. we expect there to be good and quick growth. >> how is lining up to oppose it? >> it has wide support on capitol hill. even the administration backs the bill. it does seem to have broad support across washington and the country for businesses that want to export products to russia. >> with all of the legislation and that remains to be done in the lame-duck session, this is the first one. what are the prospects in th
the world war iii. host: let's go to russia. before the elections, president obama was heard on a hot microphone telling dmitry medvedev that he would have more flexibility after the election. what was he referring to? host: -- guest: romney is sent one of his sons to speak to one of the aids of vladimir putin. policy someone gets frozen during an election. russian policy, in particular. president who was prime minister during that time and now is president again. the relationship with russia has been somewhat fractious lately. secretary of state hillary clinton accused the russians of ridding their election. there were concerned for these popular protests in moscow where there was great oppression by the government and who lashed out at the united states as well. -- and putin lashed out. one of the earlier policies was for a russian reset, and attempted to take a relationship that was good at one. that had turned very fractious and taken from a basic transactional relationship, just dealing with things as they came out, to building a new, strategic relationship in russia. that has so
. the question was about to russia's role in asia pacific. russia was this year's host of apac. it will participate at the east asia summit. it is an important player in the asia-pacific region. both economically and diplomatically. it will continue to be so. >> regarding the president's trip to burma. human-rights leaders expressed concerns that this visit was too fast, too generous. their main concern here is that the administration is far leveraging the opportunity of the first presidential visit which can only be once to press for new reforms. has the administration been able to leverage this a budget -- visit for tangible foreign measures? would you like to be secretary of state? thank you. [laughter] >> thank you for those questions, josh. with respect to burma -- there have been remarkable progress. since we saw the president called them cookers of progress in the summer of 2011. you have seen the release of prisoners, you have seen the easing of the media restrictions, you have seen the infighting into the political process of the parties. we have consulted with stakeho
a nuclear threat was a problem. but the cold war focused on russia and the united states. so fast forward. you have vietnam. vietnam san adventure on to itself in terms of north and south vietnam. many of you in this room may have served in vietnam. then you moved fast forward and we were going have russia. the berlin wall came down and we were going to get some benefits of that peace dividends. peace was not big run rush it was a multiple stand. pick a stand. they became a challenge in stability of government, stability of resources and stability of the data we knew about those particular companies. move on forward, 9/11 happens. every one of you remember when you were. i was on the steps of the pentagon. i little literally walked out of the building that day. i was there for a meeting. i remember hearing on that gorgeous blue day an absolute eerie sound. it was like a plane had taken a wrong turn. i didn't know it was a plane because planes go up and down the potomac river. i am of the bottom of the stairs. the plane hit the building. i did not know where i was sitting that two other pl
of this -- also the building of international coalitions. russia will be a big player. and on iran, what are our international allies, partners, the guys we do business with at the u.n. -- where is everyone else prepared to be before we go forward? host: on russia, this is the "wall street journal." the defeat was a relief in russia because mitt romney had called moscow the number one political foe of the u.s. it was added that mr. vladimir putin sent a telegram to mr. obama that the kremlin said was secret until the u.s. revealed the contents. dmitry medvedev posted a "congratulations" on twitter. so that was from russia. another foreign policy issue is china. here is the "new york times." warm words from china with a subtext of warning. robust relationships with china while maintaining traditional military ties with the u.s. we do not want to be forced to choose between beijing and washington but what is going on here? guest: it has to be looked at in the context of the campaign that just ended. china emerged as a symbol -- for romney, obama's regas overseas, his inability to stand up to this
coalitions. russia will be a big player. and on iran, what are our international allies, partners, the guys we do business with at the u.n. -- where is everyone else prepared to be before we go forward? host: on russia, this is the "wall street journal." the defeat was a relief in russia because mitt romney had called moscow the number one political foe of the u.s. it was added that mr. vladimir putin sent a telegram to mr. obama that the kremlin said was secret until the u.s. revealed the contents. dmitry medvedev posted a "congratulations" on twitter. so that was from russia. another foreign policy issue is china. here is the "new york times." warm words from china with a subtext of warning. robust relationships with china while maintaining traditional military ties with the u.s. we do not want to be forced to choose between beijing and washington but what is going on here? guest: it has to be looked at in the context of the campaign that just ended. china emerged as a symbol -- weaknessy, obama's overseas, his inability to stand up to this rising asian power. the united states and china
multinational meetings of countries who oppose the scheme, including meetings that took place in russia and the united states. the bill before us directs the secretary of transportation to prohibit u.s. aircraft operators from participating in this illegal scheme. the bill also directs appropriate u.s. government officials to negotiate a worldwide approach to address aircraft emissions and to take appropriate actions to hold u.s. civil operators harmless from the e.u. emissions trading scheme. the e.u. needs to slow down, carefully weigh its decision to include international civil aviation in its emissions trading scheme. a better approach would be to work with the international civil aviation community through the u.n. international civil aviation organization to establish consensus-driven initiatives to reduce airline emissions. i'm pleased to see movement on the part of the e.u. to work with international community at i.k.o. to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions. while the post ponement for a year is a positive sign, it's not enough to ensure u.s. operators won't be n
from the beginning. i thought he may have voted the same way barack did. he went from labeling russia, which he recently called the soviet union, labeling russia are most significant geopolitical foe -- let me tell you something, he also was opposed to the new start treaty which every single solitary former republican secretary of state, republican national security adviser, republican secretary of defense was for. he was against it. he said he would have never supported it. all of a sudden -- i tell you. it is amazing. we can work with russia, we can be very close with russia. [laughter] he went from harshly criticizing us to saying we will and we will turn over for responsibility to the afghan military at the end of 2014. [applause] he went from saying we should never have set a timetable, he would not do that. i had a debate, too, with ryan. [applause] in my day, he was talking about more troops in the east, more americans would be there -- we should not have set a date. then along comes romney -- my generation has gone on the wings of a snow white dove, preaching -- preaching love
be proposing this tax that would hurt lower-income people the most. other countries, china, india, russia, brazil, none of them would propose that on their own citizens. it is the kind of approach that american enterprise systems not have to have on them, nor working families. >> thank you. i apologize for skipping your rebuttal the next question goes to tim kaine. you have mentioned that already. you noted president obama us plan calls for them to -- obama's plan. are you saying you would not, under any circumstance, vote for an obama budget or an obama bill that came to the senate that says we will cut the bush tax cuts and let them expire? >> i think my proposal is the right proposal. i will not vote for of bills that i know have a no chance of passing the house. you saw what happened this summer. they let the bush tax cuts expire over 250,000. full knowledge nothing would happen. the house passed their bill to make the task cuts permanent. they sent it to the senate with full knowledge it would not happen. the time for the no compromise positions is over. we need a compromise. a year
to be ready to go to the mat to make sure the assad regime will stay in power. that is russia and iran. the result could be an assad that stays in power, an iranian victory that will mark the good for our efforts to move iran to the negotiating table on nuclear weapons, and, in wide portions of syria, and no man's land like the somalia were militants associate with al-qaeda will find a new home. we already see some of this. this is another reason why the administration needs to engage through military means of necessary directly or indirectly providing weapons and things like no-fly zones. we need to do more urgently and this thing will slip out of control. at best, in syria, we will see an emerging shia-sunni fissure across the middle east that will be followed by fighting. but a touch on iraq -- it has not received too much commentary you -- either in the debates in the campaign or even in some of the discussions about the post-election foreign policy priority but it needs to be a priority for several reasons. iraq is a success. it is because of the efforts of the united states and o
, the stans, russia, china, all the countries that have interest in afghanistan. their calculus would be affected by our signing a bilateral agreement. >> so i think it is a very important answer. i have the same feeling. i think islamabad is the first capital that would be affected by the bilateral agreement. tying some elements of the pakistani government to terrorist groups. they are hedging their bets for what happens the day after we leave. if we're not leaving presumably, they lose that argument. but, you know, there is -- every situation is different. i can't help but relate this to iraq. nobody wanted our discussions with the iraqi government for a presence in iraq after our troops left to fail more than iran did. and in fact, they were working on that. the fact that it did fail and we have no continuing presence in iraq i think is part of the reason why iran's influences spread there and so incidentally has al qaeda re- emerged again. i think those are warnings to us about how important it is to do exactly what you have called for, which is to have a good -- much smaller but
with us, who may do less harm in the future, hopefully never, russia is one, a lot of computers, russia is much like we are in terms of understanding of the cyber threat, having a lot of smart people doing offensive development primarily for the purpose of -- think of how many ways we can be attacked. also thinking for every measure there is a countermeasure. how do we defend ourselves against potential attacks? we are being proactive and reactive at the same time. putting a lot of money and effort into our government to create a u.s. cyber command. the russians have institutionalize this and have buildings and people and very smart individuals designing ways to disrupt and corrupt systems and do bad things, as we are to our potential adversaries. that mutually assured destruction may be still works between russia and the united states. now let's take a quick look at one of the worst place today in the world -- north korea. they have got atomic bombs, they are a rogue regime, a lot of people there, a lot of smart people, like there are everywhere in the world. they have definitely got a
putin of russia, and the president of spain. with that i'll take your questions. >> a couple questions about the scandal that many of us are now covering, one specific and a bigger picture one. general allen we are learning more about skess about him and the pentagon investigation and alleged behavior does the president have faith that general allen can continue to lead the war in afghanistan. he's under investigation by the pentagon. >> can i tell you that the president thinks very highly of general allen and his service to his country. as well as the job he has done in afghanistan. at the request of the secretary of defense, the president has put on hold general allen's notion as supreme allied commander europe, pending the investigation of his conduct by the department of defense i.d. the president remains focused on fully supporting our extraordinary troops and coalition partners in afghanistan who general allen continues to lead as he has done so ably for over a year. meanwhile, the president has nominated general dunford to be the next commander and reiterates his belief that the
, look, we have the leaders of france and britain and china and russia and the u.n. and we're trying to prevent nuclear weapons, you know, you should probably not meddle in this. that's a winnable argument. i think particularly coming out of this -- obama out of a strong election. no one like gaddafi. no one liked libya. no one liked the soviets. it's doable. >> to partially answer the same question. the issue for many in congress is whether this negotiation quote-unquote allows iran to continue enriching at the 3.5% level or not. the historical position of the united states going back to the early 2000's has been that there should be a suspension of all enrichment as a confidence-building measure. from what you're saying, jim, we're well past that point and iran has a lot of truth on the ground in terms of additional centrifuges and they want the -- their so-called right under the nonproliferation treaty to be recognized. the question is at what level do they continue. >> i think there's also -- i agree with that. i want to go on here. there is a debate over countries have the right
a nuclear threat was a real problem. but during those days, the cold war really focused on russia and the united states. two powerhouses. so fast toward, you have a vietnam. many of you may have served in vietnam. then you fast forward and we were going to have russia, the berlin wall came down. we were going to get some benefits of that peace dividend. peace dividend in the intelligence community was multiple stance. so picky stand, they became a challenge in terms of one's ability of government, stability of resources and data we know about those particular companies. move on forward, 9/11 happens. everyone of you in this room remembers where you work. i was on the steps of the pentagon. i literally walked out of the building and was there for a meeting and i remember hearing on that gorgeous day an eerie sound. it was like a plane took a wrong turn but i did not know it was a plane. because planes go up and down the potomac regularly. the next thing i knew, i was on the bottom of the stairs and i'm thinking how they get from the top to the bottom of the stairs? the plane had hi
look at the consequences for russia, this is not just a regional question. it is about the relationship with another superpower, with the u.n. i am sure that a good percentage of the people here, when bush acted to go to war without a un resolution, they were very uneasy, but now, we find people saying, "maybe obama should do it," for different reasons. it is not tied to the election. the election is not going to solve the problem for them. >> let me also say i agree, 100%. do not get me wrong. i do not think that us going in and invading is going to change perceptions. either way, there is going to be these perceptions. helping syria is by no means going to change the perception that we helped some countries because of resources versus others -- that we help some countries because of resources versus others. >> i see no such trend in the country. i just do not see any public support for it. i think shibley has got it right. intervention would make things worse for syria and for us. you ask what is going to look like in a year, and i push it out five years. i think we are looking at a c
. the legislative agenda this week includes discussion with trade of russia. live coverage of the house is here on c-span. also at 2:00 eastern live coverage of the senate as members resume consideration of a sportsman bill. off the floor this week members ofts congress will hold hearings on the terrorist in benghazi attack that killed leaders. and a meeting with president obama about fiscal issues. in a few moments a book tv event with paula brot we will. petraeus designed after an f.b.i. investigation uncovered an extramarital affair. then a forum with two med doll of honor recipients and the joint chiefs of staff retired general richard myers. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning t. new america foundation hosts a discussion on how going over the fiscal cliff would effect the military, social security and medicare. that's on c-span2 at 9:00 eastern. at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3 looks at al qaeda groups in yemen. >> c-span invites middle and high school students to send a message to the president through a short video let the president know what's the most important issue he shoul
. today's agenda includes debate on the rule for a russia trade bill. and in 45 minutes, we'll be joined by republican representative ron paul of texas, a member of the foreign affairs committee. he'll take your questions about today's hearing on the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya. at 8:40 eastern, you'll hear about the fiscal cliff from independent senator bernie sanders of vermont, a member of the budget committee. also, jennifer tolbert of the
it to russia which i think is a cool idea. i got shutdown by the embassy. it is a great idea. in needs to be bigger. the bbg has an impossible to is as to do twoeared things at the same time that are very difficult to reconcile. in my view they have done an excellent job of reconciling its. number one, it is a tool of american foreign policy. it is a real journalistic institution. in need to abide by normal journalistic principles. talking to both of those things? it is hard for those who do not understand what the law actually says. i have, around to the view that the bbg needs to be brought into the broader foreign-policy making apparatus of the united states government. other was i just do not think it is going to survive. i think that attention needs to be resolved one way or another pie. the way it works now is that we used to sit down a summit people from our state wants are twice a year and see what is on your mind? i hope when i was under the secretary of there was more guidance. i think there needs to be. the second thing is that there needs to be a reorganization of the bbg.
, where they were born and raised in russia and they inherited a lot of money and they are actually communists. so all the republican party kind of liens on their side. money is not given away -- some people just give money away or they loan it to you, but if you are going to give money for a republican to win, to buy a governor or a president, there is something you want back. all of these republicans better take in mind that they could be voting for a communist which is a movement coming into our country. the documentary says -- host: where did you see the documentary? caller: national geographic. from noon until 6:00, and half of it was about the koch brothers. but you saw it on the national geographic jenna? larry sabato, any response? guest: i am just on to say this. i never met the koch brothers and i never -- never corresponded with them. i've got news for you. they are not communists. i am pretty sure of that. so, let me just correct the record, and i think we should go on. host: how often do voters split tickets in virginia? guest: a very good question. virginia was once th
.p. and they also have, b.p. has a big deal going with russia right now too, start drilling in antarctica. i think they need to put a stop to that, or at least some regulation and more control on it. and that's my comment. host: don, thanks for the call from new york this morning. here's a chart from the "new york times," talking about the money b.p. has set aside and spent to date to cover the fall out from the 2010 spill. b.p. has set aside about $42 billion to cover cover costs related to the accident. spent about $36.3 billion to date, that includes the $4.5 billion of fines and penalties levied by the government as part of thursday's settlement. about $7.8 billion proposed settlement with other claimments, $9 billion paid out to resolve claims by individuals, businesses and government enities, and $14 billion in operational response and clean up cost. we'll go to dean from grantsburg, wisconsin on the democratic line. dean, thanks for the call. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to say if your guy's program wasn't so good we wouldn't be able to ask such
, but the lower levels have increased considerably. as you can see, there is a lot of over russia there in recent years. i also want to focus on the total number of political appointees and appointments available to each president. these are the main categories. presidential appointment with consent at the set, about 800 people, they are at the top of the executive branch, these are constitutionally established offices of the united states. each one of them is created by a congressional statute. non-career senior executive service. it has about 8000 career people, but 10% of those means nonpolitical appointees. it is a bridge gaps between the top-level executive and the next layer is of mid-level management. the next category are level 1- 15, it means general schedule. these were created in 1953. republicans were so starved of getting offices, eisenhower did not approve of patronage and did not want anything to do with a, but the pressure from the republican party was so great that they brought patronage into the white house and created in schedules c positions lower at the bureaucracy. at that t
have serious and continuing differences with russia -- on syria, missile defense, nato enlargement, a human-rights, and other issues. so we have to take a smart and balanced approach going forward. we need to continue expanding our engagement with russia, but with very clear rise about where we draw our lines. we also have to engage with a set of the emerging democratic powers like brazil and mexico, india and indonesia, south africa and turkey, that are exercising greater influence in their region and on the world stage. the strategic fundamentals of these relationships, shared democratic values, common economic and security priorities, are pushing our interests and do closer convergence. this is reflected in the broad strategic dialogue we have launched with the emerging powers. the key going forward will be to encourage them to leave behind the outdated politics of the past and take up the responsibilities that come with global influence, including defending our shared democratic values beyond their borders. let me turn to the third element of our agenda, what i call economic st
to know if obama is president again we're going to end up like russia. there are thousands of family in cincinnati that have led from socialism. if we have obama as president socialism will be in the united states. host: less of a map to get a sense of where the candidates have been. -- let's look at a map to get a sense of where the candidates have been. all the candidates have been crisscrossing ohio. the other battleground states colorado, iowa, and now wisconsin. minnesota is in play. a romney in pennsylvania. the states of getting the most attention since the party conventions. they have been traveling to a total of 10 states. later this afternoon we will have live coverage of bombing donald. he will be joined by two of the romney sons. they are in virginia. good afternoon. caller: hello. i voted for obama because i am highly impressed with his leadership and the leadership he has shown throughout his administration. i am also impressed with his vice-president mr. joe biden. they work together as a team. we need to finish what we started. i also enjoyed listening to mr. biden's
. [applause] because of al gore, we have a stronger and more secure relationship with a democratic russia. we are exploring the wonders of new technology for the benefit of america and we are protecting our environment and we have reinvented the american government so it does more with less. it is a legacy unique in the history of this republic. i thank tepper for her friendship, for her crusade on behalf of our children and the mental health of the american people and always standing with us all along with her children and her family. i thank the members of our administration, the cabinet members, the members of the white house staff by. [applause] -- the members of the white house staff. i think all those part of the permanent service to the president, the white house and medical staff. be i think especially my secret service detail for serving a president determined not to be held apart from the american people. i thank the members of our campaign staff and all those who have served in this election and the work you have done. i think the leaders of our party in the congress and statehouse
poor. we have seen this in russia, china, east germany -- i mean, nobody is healthy. everybody is equally miserable everybody has to understand, let's not tax the wealthy so much, and pretty soon you will not have wealthy people any more, and everybody is not going to advance and our society will be poorer for it. host: that is joe in gaithersburg, maryland, in the suburbs of washington, d.c.. one of the races watch was in massachusetts. elizabeth warren gave her speech last night. [video clip] [applause] >> you did everything that everyone thought was impossible, he taught a scrappy, first-time candidate how to get in the ring and win. [applause] you took on the powerful wall street banks and special interests, and you let them tell you what a senator that will be out there fighting for the middle class all of the time. [applause] and despite the odds, you elected the first woman senator. [applause] i want to close by noting that it was exactly 50 years ago tonight that senator. kennedy was first elected to the united states -- ted kennedy was first elected to the united state
with the russians on making sure their interests are addressed in syria. i do not think russia is wedded to assad. may be establishing a no-fly zone from turkey, may be providing direct military assistance, but something to break the region's debt lot. syria cannot afford for a long time much of the destruction that it is undertaking. my last point has to do with peace. rob cover this up. i have said this for awhile and i will say it again, very and diplomatically, it is peace now or never. i understand all the difficulties that the u.s. president will face in trying to bring this to conflict resolution. i understand the priority of this issue is not in terms of other u.s. priorities domestically. i understand the president is facing hard-line israeli government not interested in my view in 8 two-state solution that is viable, a week palestinian government that does not have what it takes to come to an arrangement. i understand all this. i also understand if something drastic is not done today, we will lose this opportunity probably forever. one has to choose between the difficult and the impossi
. the united states if, china, france, germany, russia, known as the p-5 plus one and the united kingdom have tried to negotiate with iran over its nuclear program. both sides have fumbled the fleeting opportunities to reduce the risk of a nuclear armed iran, and to prevent the risk of war, to reduce the risk of war over that nuclear program. since 2007, u.s. and western intelligence agencies have assessed that iran is nuclear capable. meaning that iran has a scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. and those intelligence agencies continue to this day to assess that iran has not yet made a decision to do so. the intelligence agencies and independent experts also believe that starting from today iran would require several months to aware enough fissile material for just one bomb and still more time to build a deliverible nuclear weapon. secretary of decommon sense panetta recently estimated it would take two to three years to do so. the latest report bhaced on its ongoing inspections of iran's nuclear facilities, particularly
, or is this your conclusion? >> this is the conclusion gary . >> take your time -- i did not mean to russia that much, but i thought you had another point. >> as national nonprofits, we have national -- often fail. we have frequently been too hesitant. more damage of the militants -- damaging our the militants to a pandered to their members with alarmist rhetoric, misinformation, fight talk, and all this is encouraging the search for a bad guy, somebody to blame, thereby pouring gasoline on the fires of the people that are looking to us for leadership instead of helping them with messages of acceptance, respect, openness to a pact that may be different from what we expected, and helping them get the services they need. i ask this administration, as well as our community, to lead and to help these constituents in such a way that was not just be acceptable to the polls or pander to any ill-conceived notion that an injustice was done or that there was something in the water. i cannot and dstress enough my disappointment that the conversation on vaccines is still evidence. >>t. in respect to ea
to use the kind of diplomacy that i think would be highly desirable, to find a way to work with russia to work out a deal to go forward. i just want to make that point that paula also made. as wonderful as all the modern tools are, the world will not allow us to get away with tools. we will need to confront the situation, and i think the moment is here. it is overdue. it is extremely urgent to find a way to end the killing in syria. it sets a terrible example to other bad guys in the region and elsewhere if we do not act. >> we are going to have to wrap it up pretty soon, but we will take two more comments. >> thank you. in the australian high commissioner in ottawa. i am standing in for my defense secretary, but it is quite fun for me, if not for him. i want to make a point, having had a long period of being a diplomatic practitioner. particularly in my part of the world, indochina, asia, jakarta, our part of the world has different views. we know what has happened in china. thailand has sufficiently grown to no longer be a recipient of foreign aid. similarly, indonesia, which will sh
with syria and russia. this is just over an hour. >> i am going to be very brief in introducing our two panelists. i think they are -- i am also going to be in the discussion, for which jonathan promised me two cookies instead of one, for doing double duty. i am not going to say anything substantive about this panel other than looking at the u.s. side of things and the regional side of things, they mesh very well and they also mesh with the first panel. i think we all know jeffrey. the founding director of the thornton center and the senior director at the nfc under president obama for the first two plus years i guess. he has written, by the way, a wonderful book accounting that time, which i think is probably available in the brookings bookstore, and which is probably a great read. jonathan is the current acting director of the thornton center, somebody i must say that, on a personal level, when he was out in the wilds of california, some place beyond the appellation, i think, i used to turn to his right things to understand what was going on in northeast asia. i did not know him, but
they were born and raised in russia and they inherited a lot of money and they are actually communists. so all the republican party kind of liens on their side. money is not given away -- some people just give money away or they loan it to you, but if you are going to give money for a republican to win, to buy a governor or a president, there is something you want back. all of these republicans better take in mind that they could be voting for a communist which is a movement coming into our country. the documentary says -- host: where did you see the documentary? caller: national geographic. from noon until 6:00, and half of it was about the koch brothers. but you saw it on the national geographic jenna? larry sabato, any response? guest: i am just on to say this. i never met the koch brothers and i never -- never corresponded with them. i've got news for you. they are not communists. i am pretty sure of that. so, let me just correct the record, and i think we should go on. host: how often do voters split tickets in virginia? guest: a very good question. virginia was once the ticket splitt
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 52 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)